Cited by

Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 10 (2016).

As our supreme court recognized in American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., the prejudice inquiry typically requires courts to “determine whether the communication would likely prejudice a hypothetical average juror.”

Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 17 (2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Ariz. R. Civ.

Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶¶ 12–13 (2016) (holding that there is no need for an evidentiary hearing without an assertion of disputed facts).

Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., (moving party must demonstrate “objective likelihood,” or reasonable probability, that extraneous material affected verdict); Carter-Glogau Lab’ys, Inc. v. Constr., Prod.

Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 10 (2016) (Rule 59); (Rule 60).

Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 10 (2016) (Rule 59); (Rule 60); ¶ 24 (App. 2017) (Rule 56(d)); ¶ 6 (App. 2001) (reconsideration).

Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 10 (2016).

Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 10 (2016).

American Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 10 (2016).

ods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 2 (App. 2014) (seller agreed to sell items to buyer on an 5 BROADBAND v. SATCOM, et al. Opinion of the Court open account; seller sued buyer for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation, seeking over $5 million in damages), rev’d on other grounds, Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc., (discussing dismissal, on other grounds, of plaintiff’s claims for collection “on an open account owed for certain printing delivered under the terms of the contract” and fo

Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 10 (2016).

Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 10 (2016).

the parties’ claims for attorneys’ fees, court costs, and other expenses,” American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., , 157 ¶ 21